|
 Silversoul
Rhizome
 
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
 Re: Intelligent Design  [Re: afoaf]
#4742343 - 10/01/05 08:07 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
 wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
i like this cartoon:
ps. hey everyone! the mushmaster returns. it's been a hell of a year. this place looks about the same. i had to leave for a while and sort out a rather shitty legal mess i got myself into... but i'm back!
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: wilshire]
#4750648 - 10/03/05 05:52 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Mushmaster! Great to see you again!
<---SS7
I thought this cartoon pretty much hit the nail on the head:
--------------------
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#4750956 - 10/03/05 07:03 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
haha. i like that.
it's good to be back... what's with your name change?
(i wrote a post in security and safety about the little adventure i've been on for the past 10 months or so...)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: wilshire]
#4751020 - 10/03/05 07:17 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said:
haha. i like that.
it's good to be back... what's with your name change?
(i wrote a post in security and safety about the little adventure i've been on for the past 10 months or so...)
Mushmaster! What's up man?
Check out my avatar. I WILL find the real killers!
|
Unagipie
Pilgrim -DBK鰻
Registered: 08/11/05
Posts: 6,300
Loc: The Trenches of France
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
|
|
10 years and counting
--------------------
Don't fight it. Just let the illuminados take over your mind. You be at bliss soon.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Unagipie]
#4751064 - 10/03/05 07:26 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Unagipie said:
10 years and counting
Hey, what can I say? They're pretty crafty.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: wilshire]
#4751163 - 10/03/05 07:44 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said:
it's good to be back... what's with your name change?
Long story, and kind of hard to explain. Let's just say that I had a crisis in my life, and the name change is symbolic of the inner change I went through as a result.
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#4751207 - 10/03/05 07:50 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
I wanted to get away from my goatse pic that I did as SS7.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
bwahahahahahahaha
oh god, can I post that in this forum?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
Quote:
Paradigm said:
I wanted to get away from my goatse pic that I did as SS7.
Ya, that too...
Shit-eater. 
--------------------
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#4751579 - 10/03/05 09:02 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
hahahahahaha....even better...
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Bamaman
...has issues.
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 657
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: afoaf]
#4763711 - 10/06/05 11:47 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
A Moment in History...
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton?s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ?My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. ?Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ?Nobody.?
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ?Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ?Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.? ?You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, ?Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.?
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ?This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion??
Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ?The Truth: God or evolution?? by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
________
________
It seems many people here do not consider ID a reasonable theory, and in some cases people believe that ID isn?t even ?technically? a theory at all. This is based on the assumption that ID is not scientifically valid, but instead? religious nonsense and general superstition.
No scientific evidence for ID??? Methinks you spend too much time ignoring the EVIDENCE.
Let?s see what I can dig up for those who have made a conclusion before KNOWING all the facets to this argument. Below is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic_fld.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/createdearth/createdearth.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/problems_macro/prob_macro.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/mammoths/mammoths.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html
_______
_______
Human footprints alongside dinosaur prints?but I thought evolution taught they lived in completely different times???
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
_________
_________
Lot?s of reading here!
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
________
________
What happens when scientists own testing shows their error?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
_________
_________
Lot?s of reading here too!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp
_________
_________
Just an idea?.how much time have you spent thru your whole life studying or being bombarded with evolution beliefs, (that includes every discussion, tv show, class, book, etc.. that promoted or presented evolution as a ?given?.)? Try spending half that amount of time reading and studying creation evidence and theories?and you may not be so ignorant to say stuff like ?creation is not scientifically valid? or ?there is no evidence supporting creation?.
I am no scientist, and I was raised atheist and believed in evolution until I was nearly 30 yrs old. I too thought that creation was based purely on religious mumbo jumbo. I was ignorant to the fact that evolution IS FULL OF HOLES! I was also ignorant to the fact that creation is a very reasonable theory that is packed with scientific evidence.
Too many people out there have made their conclusion while knowing the tiniest fraction of the argument they are opposing. Read, learn, then after a few years of intense study on creation theories and evidence make an EDUCATED conclusion.
"That's all I have to say about that."
Forest Gump
--------------------
Diabetes causes hamsters.
 
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Bamaman]
#4764328 - 10/06/05 02:42 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bamaman said:
A Moment in History...
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton?s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ?My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. ?Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ?Nobody.?
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ?Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ?Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.? ?You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, ?Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.?
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ?This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion??
Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ?The Truth: God or evolution?? by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
Isaac Newton, for being the genius that he was, still had many of his theories discredited by Einstein, and later by Heisenberg. One can't really blame him, since he did not have access to the information that those two had. Science always is confined to the information available at the time, which is why new technology can lead to new discoveries which disprove old ones.
Quote:
It seems many people here do not consider ID a reasonable theory, and in some cases people believe that ID isn?t even ?technically? a theory at all. This is based on the assumption that ID is not scientifically valid, but instead? religious nonsense and general superstition.
It is not scientifically valid because it is not testable. We cannot test for an intelligent designer, thus it is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientifically valid.
Quote:
No scientific evidence for ID??? Methinks you spend too much time ignoring the EVIDENCE.
Let?s see what I can dig up for those who have made a conclusion before KNOWING all the facets to this argument. Below is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/magnetic_fld/magnetic_fld.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/createdearth/createdearth.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/problems_macro/prob_macro.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/mammoths/mammoths.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_scripture.html
From the first link:
Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits.
This premise is false, therefore we cannot accept its conclusions. Evolutionary theory does not say that life needs X amount of time to evolve. Indeed, we have actually seen evolution and speciation to occur more in spurts rather than in a linear fashion.
From the second link:
Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. The fossil record contains evidence of great disturbances in the field that give us an idea of the magnitude of the geologic events during Noah's flood.
The magnetic decay is not steady, and there have been several reversals in the Earth's magnetic field throughout its history. In fact, we are in the beginning of yet another such reversal right now. The last reversal was not 6,000 years ago, as this would seem to indicate, but rather several million years ago, around the same time homo erectus walked the earth.
The third link is laughable. It points to all the factors that had to be present on Earth for life to exist, and that it therefore could not have happened by chance. I believe there is actually a fallacy named for this specific type of invalid logic, but its name escapes me. The fact is that if these factors weren't present, then we wouldn't be here to note their presence. And considering the immense size of the universe, it is more than likely that countless other planets have the same conditions.
The next link uses many of the same fallacies that have been covered already. The link seems to assume that a theory can only be tested in a laboratory. This is false, as we see in the case of astronomy. A theory must simply make testable predictions. Evolution has done so, and those predictions have been supported by the evidence, such as the fossil record and genetic sequence data.
The fourth link claims that mammoths could not have survived in an arctic climate, and then claims that their extinction is consistent with the great Biblical flood. Both claims are patently false. The adaptations which are present in mammoths are consistent with the adaptations which normally occur in animals inhabiting colder climates. And if the mammoths were killed off in the great flood, we should expect to see similar mass extinctions around the same time in different species. We do not see a strong enough correlation to lead to that conclusion.
As for carbon dating, if the radioactive decay of carbon-14 were to change, we would see evidence of this in the structure of stars. But all observable stars have a structure predictable under current decay rates.
The next link covers the same stuff which I have already refuted, so I will skip over that. The following link simply lists Bible verses which supposedly correlate to scientific knowledge. I don't have a Bible handy, nor do I have the time to go through each of them and refute them one-by-one, but based on similar debates I've had with creationists(as well as with UFO enthusiasts), I'm guessing those verses are rather vague, and could allude to a number of things. If they were specific enough, we could expect the ancient Hebrews to have been much more technologically advanced than they were.
Quote:
Human footprints alongside dinosaur prints?but I thought evolution taught they lived in completely different times???
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
   
If only you knew how many times I've seen this bullshit. It has been thoroughly debunked, as discussed here. These so-called human footprints are like clouds in the sky. People see what they want to see. Careful analysis show that they are due to natural processes like erosion, infilling, and mud collapse. Sometimes they are the distorted footprints of 3-toed dinosaurs. And then, of course, there are the outright hoaxes.
Quote:
Lot?s of reading here!
http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/
And much of it already refuted, and not worth my time.
Quote:
What happens when scientists own testing shows their error?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
Rebuttal here:
"1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.
2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is."
Quote:
Lot?s of reading here too!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp
Much of which, again, has already been discussed, and thus is not worth my time.
Quote:
Just an idea?.how much time have you spent thru your whole life studying or being bombarded with evolution beliefs, (that includes every discussion, tv show, class, book, etc.. that promoted or presented evolution as a ?given?.)? Try spending half that amount of time reading and studying creation evidence and theories?and you may not be so ignorant to say stuff like ?creation is not scientifically valid? or ?there is no evidence supporting creation?.
I have spent lots of time studying and analyzing creationist arguments, which is how I came to a deeper understanding of evolution, and how the evidence supports it.
Quote:
I am no scientist, and I was raised atheist and believed in evolution until I was nearly 30 yrs old. I too thought that creation was based purely on religious mumbo jumbo. I was ignorant to the fact that evolution IS FULL OF HOLES! I was also ignorant to the fact that creation is a very reasonable theory that is packed with scientific evidence.
It is the arguments of creationists which are full of holes. Evolution makes predictions which are consistent with the available evidence. Creationism works backwards from its beliefs and adjusts the evidence to suit its needs.
Quote:
Too many people out there have made their conclusion while knowing the tiniest fraction of the argument they are opposing. Read, learn, then after a few years of intense study on creation theories and evidence make an EDUCATED conclusion.
I suggest you do the same. I have.
Quote:
"That's all I have to say about that."
Forest Gump
Let's hope so.
Note that even if the evidence you have provided was valid, it would not be evidence in support of intelligent design or creationism. Those ideas require an outside force which cannot be tested for, and therefore they do not fill the requirements for a theory. What the arguments you have presented attempt to do is to discredit evolution, and they fail miserably at doing so. But even if they did prove evolution to be false, it does not follow that creationism is therefore true.
--------------------
|
Bamaman
...has issues.
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 657
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#4764931 - 10/06/05 04:42 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
blah blah blah ...you ain't said diddly except that this is refuted... this has already been discussed... that has been debunked...that not worth me repeating. all a buncha' crap that is simply you using your resources to argue mine. or simply waving them off as if that makes you right. we could go back and forth ...ad infinitum
evolutionary theory is based on inaccurate and inconsistent methods...all science has ever done is claim one thing as FACT until they have proven their own FACTS wrong, and then try to sell the 'NEW' theory as fact! but you think the most recents claims are evidence ....hahahahahahahahahahaha...what a joke.
I suggest you take another approach to studying creationism, try spending all that time trying to PROVE it instead of trying to disprove it.
just imagine if the situation for the last 100yrs was reversed, just imagine that all the time, money, and man-power that has been given to the study proving evolutionary theory was actually given to creationists. then imagine that the evolutionists only got the time, money, and man-power that has been dedicated to creationism.
the resources available between the two is not even anywhere close to equal, for every creationist trying to prove his theory they have to defend themselves against 30 evolutionists. for every dollar a creationist has available the evolutionist has a hundred.
give me a 100 million dollars to prove my theory, against someone who has been given a million and you can bet that my work would appear more credible!!
think man, think!
just remember if you live in the USA, you were only taught evolution in school because some idiot claimed that a pigs jaw was human. after they found out that it wasn't real, did they reverse the decision for evolutionary teaching in the class,...hell no!
that is like finding out that someone on death-row was innocent because of some new evidence and then executing him anyway!
time will tell the truth my friend... but by then you evolutionists will have completely new theories to sell us. it's what y'all do.
--------------------
Diabetes causes hamsters.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Bamaman]
#4765081 - 10/06/05 05:14 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bamaman said:
blah blah blah ...you ain't said diddly except that this is refuted... this has already been discussed... that has been debunked...that not worth me repeating. all a buncha' crap that is simply you using your resources to argue mine. or simply waving them off as if that makes you right. we could go back and forth ...ad infinitum
Way to read selectively. I responded to all the relevant arguments you brought up. Do not expect me to respond to those long websites which merely repeat the same argument in various forms. If you have a specific argument you'd like me to address, I'll gladly do so, just as I already have with the specific issues your links brought up.
Quote:
evolutionary theory is based on inaccurate and inconsistent methods...all science has ever done is claim one thing as FACT until they have proven their own FACTS wrong, and then try to sell the 'NEW' theory as fact! but you think the most recents claims are evidence ....hahahahahahahahahahaha...what a joke.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You clearly know nothing about how science works. It is religion which claims to know absolute truth. Theories are not considered fact. They are theories. If science still uses a theory, it is because its predictions are supported by the available evidence, and have failed to be disproven.
Quote:
I suggest you take another approach to studying creationism, try spending all that time trying to PROVE it instead of trying to disprove it.
Huh? How can I try to prove something which is not testable?
Quote:
just imagine if the situation for the last 100yrs was reversed, just imagine that all the time, money, and man-power that has been given to the study proving evolutionary theory was actually given to creationists. then imagine that the evolutionists only got the time, money, and man-power that has been dedicated to creationism.
That makes no sense. Scientists don't set out to prove evolution. They set out to test it. This is why so-called "creation science" is not real science. They start with the assumption that their beliefs are true, and selectively pick at things which support those beliefs. The evidence for evolution speaks for itself. The fossil record has consistently supported the predictions of evolution, and has failed to disprove it(which it should be possible to do if evolution is indeed false).
Quote:
the resources available between the two is not even anywhere close to equal, for every creationist trying to prove his theory they have to defend themselves against 30 evolutionists. for every dollar a creationist has available the evolutionist has a hundred.
Jerry Faldwell seems to have quite a large amount of money, as does Pat Robertson. How about asking them for funding. But again you're missing the point. Scientists don't bother trying to prove evolution. They take a hypothesis and set out to test it. For example, it was hypothesized that if humans are descended from apes, there should be several transitional fossils which show ape-like and human-like features. Paleontologists set out to test this hypothesis by digging for such fossils. They found them, and they appeared during the geological time period that one would expect for such fossils, so the hypothesis was supported by the evidence. Evolution is a valid theory precisely because it allows us to make such predictions.
Quote:
give me a 100 million dollars to prove my theory, against someone who has been given a million and you can bet that my work would appear more credible!!
If I had the money, I'd give you 100 million dollars to test creationism, but first you'd have to give me an idea of what predictions can be made from this "theory." How do you intend to test for a creator? What evidence could we look for could disprove such a theory? If it's unfalsifiable, then it's not a valid theory, no matter how much money you make. Also, just how much money do you think paleontologists make?
Quote:
think man, think!
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Quote:
just remember if you live in the USA, you were only taught evolution in school because some idiot claimed that a pigs jaw was human. after they found out that it wasn't real, did they reverse the decision for evolutionary teaching in the class,...hell no!
WTF? You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Just how many of these fossils do you think exist? Even if it were true that a single specimen had a jaw misidentified as humanoid when it actually belonged to a pig, that wouldn't negate the countless other homonid fossils that have been found. Or are you asserting that every single one of those fossils contained a pig jaw?
Quote:
that is like finding out that someone on death-row was innocent because of some new evidence and then executing him anyway!
Not in the slightest.
Quote:
time will tell the truth my friend... but by then you evolutionists will have completely new theories to sell us. it's what y'all do.
In the extremely unlikely event that evolution is disproven(pretty far-fetched considering that speciation has actually been observed), it is true that someone will probably come up with a new theory which better explains all the evidence, makes testable predictions, and is falsifiable. That's because science operates on higher standards than religious dogma. Science adapts its ideas to new information as it comes to light, rather than adapting the information to its ideas.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Bamaman]
#4765169 - 10/06/05 05:32 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Please provide one instance where either intelligent design or creationism has been used to accurately predict a future event.
--------------------
|
Bamaman
...has issues.
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 657
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: zappaisgod]
#4765279 - 10/06/05 05:59 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yawn...let's start one at a time...you laughed at my human/dinosaur co-existing footprints link and gave a link as your proof that it had been "thoroughly debunked". That link involves comments about these prints some of which were made by Kuban and some by Hastings.
Here's a perfect example of you reading the rebuttal, (no matter how ignorant), and believing it because they said it. Try this link which shows the absolute constant backtracking and pure assumptions made by your little evolutionists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
P.S. since you obviously have a problem with semantics, when people use the words "creation" and "ID". Let's just do this simply and call my argument "young earth" and yours "old earth", ok.
Chew on that awhile and tell me where the error lies in that link, because that link tells where the error lies in yours... 
--------------------
Diabetes causes hamsters.
|
Bamaman
...has issues.
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 657
Loc: Down the rabbit hole...
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Bamaman]
#4765308 - 10/06/05 06:05 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"WTF? You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Just how many of these fossils do you think exist? Even if it were true that a single specimen had a jaw misidentified as humanoid when it actually belonged to a pig, that wouldn't negate the countless other homonid fossils that have been found. Or are you asserting that every single one of those fossils contained a pig jaw?"
Really?... it was called the scopes monkey trial do a little reading before you tell people they have no clue, and while your at it please specify exactly what "countless" fossils you think uphold your claim. would that be the misidentified ones? or the hoaxes?
--------------------
Diabetes causes hamsters.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: Bamaman]
#4765310 - 10/06/05 06:06 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bamaman said:
Yawn...let's start one at a time...you laughed at my human/dinosaur co-existing footprints link and gave a link as your proof that it had been "thoroughly debunked". That link involves comments about these prints some of which were made by Kuban and some by Hastings.
Here's a perfect example of you reading the rebuttal, (no matter how ignorant), and believing it because they said it. Try this link which shows the absolute constant backtracking and pure assumptions made by your little evolutionists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
Huh? I don't see any backtracking there. If you want a more extensive explanation, try this.
Also, if humans coexisted with dinosaurs, we might expect to see fossilized human remains in the same geological time period as the dinosaurs. Yet despite numerous excavations of dinosaur skeletons, not a single human bone has been discovered from the same time period. In fact, no mammals any larger than a cat have been found to have coexisted with dinosaurs. Why is that?
Quote:
P.S. since you obviously have a problem with semantics, when people use the words "creation" and "ID". Let's just do this simply and call my argument "young earth" and yours "old earth", ok.
Ok, you're doing better. Instead of making an unfalsifiable claim like life being created by a sentient being, you've moved to a more specific, demonstrably false claim. We're making progress.
Quote:
Chew on that awhile and tell me where the error lies in that link, because that link tells where the error lies in yours...
That's the same link I provided, and it supports what I've been saying. Perhaps you meant to post a different one?
--------------------
Edited by Paradigm (10/06/05 06:26 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
APE Liquid Culture For Sale 
Cultivation Supplies 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Xlea321
wingnutx
Baby_Hitler
carbonhoots
Innvertigo
pattern